Anybody see this? | High Sierra Topix  

Anybody see this?

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
User avatar

Re: Anybody see this?

Postby rlown » Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:04 pm

Another good use of a trekking pole. right into the spokes. :) front wheel.



User avatar
rlown
Topix Junkie
 
Posts: 5349
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Petaluma and Wilton, CA
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: Anybody see this?

Postby cmon4day » Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:29 am

cefire wrote:
cmon4day wrote:I really don't see the problem with MTB's in the wilderness. Everyone here on this forum loves the mountains for the solitude, scenery and adventure. What makes a person who loves to ride any different.


What makes a person who likes to ride their motorcycle any different? Their convertible car, is that any different? At some point, you've got to propose where the 'line' should be drawn and, more importantly why. In contrast, all that you currently propose is that the line be shifted just enough to add one more group.


cefire,

Motorcycles, convertible cars, are not human powered activities. There in lies your "line".
User avatar
cmon4day
Topix Regular
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:08 pm
Location: Dublin, CA
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Anybody see this?

Postby TehipiteTom » Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:03 pm

LMBSGV wrote:As a long-time resident of first Fairfax and then West Marin, I’ve been in the middle of the mountain bike-hiker-equestrian wars since the beginning. My first encounter with a mountain bike was Joe Breeze riding one of the first “clunkers” on a trail in Fairfax. Due to my extensive experience with bike-hiker encounters, I am completely opposed to mountain bikes in designated wilderness. For all the reasons stated in other posts, bikes on wilderness trails is a disaster. One of the biggest problems for the Marin County Parks department are all the illegal single track trails built by bikers in areas with extensive networks of fire roads where bikers can ride legally. (Within a mile of my house, I know of at least three illegal single tracks.) Imagine what will happen in wilderness areas with bikers building illegal trails.

Unfortunately, there is a rather pushy segment of the mountain bike community that will not give up on their push to get bikes in wilderness areas. Currently, the Marin Parks department is having meetings on rules for the parks and open space and the bikers show up in force, verbally intimidating anyone who disagrees with them. They simply do not perceive the incompatibility of a bike with wilderness or even most trails. “Erosion caused by bikes? Hikers run down? What are you talking about? We should be able to go anywhere we want.”

It is time for the National Park Service and Forest Service to state that mountains bikes will never be permitted in any designated wilderness and that the discussion is closed. No further comment.

Amen to this. Anyone who has witnessed the behavior of mountain bikers in the Bay Area is likely to be skeptical of allowing them in the wilderness.

On a practical level, the extended range of mountain bikes would cause real degradation of the wilderness. Just look at the condition of any easily accessible campsite in any popular wilderness area, then think about making access easier deeper into the wilderness, and you'll see what I mean.
User avatar
TehipiteTom
Founding Member
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:42 am
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: Anybody see this?

Postby Pietro257 » Mon Dec 21, 2015 6:16 pm

TehipiteTom wrote:
LMBSGV wrote:As a long-time resident of first Fairfax and then West Marin, I’ve been in the middle of the mountain bike-hiker-equestrian wars since the beginning. My first encounter with a mountain bike was Joe Breeze riding one of the first “clunkers” on a trail in Fairfax. Due to my extensive experience with bike-hiker encounters, I am completely opposed to mountain bikes in designated wilderness. For all the reasons stated in other posts, bikes on wilderness trails is a disaster. One of the biggest problems for the Marin County Parks department are all the illegal single track trails built by bikers in areas with extensive networks of fire roads where bikers can ride legally. (Within a mile of my house, I know of at least three illegal single tracks.) Imagine what will happen in wilderness areas with bikers building illegal trails.

Unfortunately, there is a rather pushy segment of the mountain bike community that will not give up on their push to get bikes in wilderness areas. Currently, the Marin Parks department is having meetings on rules for the parks and open space and the bikers show up in force, verbally intimidating anyone who disagrees with them. They simply do not perceive the incompatibility of a bike with wilderness or even most trails. “Erosion caused by bikes? Hikers run down? What are you talking about? We should be able to go anywhere we want.”

It is time for the National Park Service and Forest Service to state that mountains bikes will never be permitted in any designated wilderness and that the discussion is closed. No further comment.

Amen to this. Anyone who has witnessed the behavior of mountain bikers in the Bay Area is likely to be skeptical of allowing them in the wilderness.

On a practical level, the extended range of mountain bikes would cause real degradation of the wilderness. Just look at the condition of any easily accessible campsite in any popular wilderness area, then think about making access easier deeper into the wilderness, and you'll see what I mean.


Amen to this again. I live in San Francisco and occasionally enjoy day hikes in Marin County, where trail bikes are a menace. I would hate to see them in wilderness areas.
User avatar
Pietro257
Topix Acquainted
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 5:03 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Anybody see this?

Postby kpeter » Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:22 am

Reading that paragraph of the Wilderness Act was interesting. Not only are bicycles banned, but other mechanical devices like "portage wheels."

I am reminded of what we learned about Duck Lake on this forum when I came across the memorial to a fisherman that had been placed there, and his grandson posted here to tell us about his history. That family carted an aluminum boat in to Duck Lake over Duck Pass using some sort of contraption, and left the boat at the lake until Wilderness designation forced it out. I imagine it was some sort of portage wheel.

If bicycles are allowed in, then why not portage wheels?

The one saving grace is that the Forest Service does such a bad job with trail maintenance that the jackstraw will make bicycles and portage wheels miserable on all the side trails. But what about those trails that are well maintained? I think the JMT will be a particular problem, since it is so meticulously groomed by volunteer groups. What do you say, Rogue, will the volunteers who extract every rock and cut every deadfall and projecting bush on the JMT want to be quite so thorough if they know they are grooming it for the easier use of mountain bikes?
User avatar
kpeter
Topix Expert
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:11 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Anybody see this?

Postby Shawn » Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:07 pm

Well kpeter, according to the draft bill, they would be allowed.

(b) Activities involving “human-powered recreation” and derivative forms of this term generally mean those of the following types:
(1) Quiet activities undertaken through the exertions of a living being, including mountain climbing, rock-climbing, cliff-scaling, hiking, running,
jogging, camping, orienteering, backpacking, bicycling of all types, bouldering, unicycling, hunting, fishing, skiing, snowshoeing, boating,
paddling, kayaking, canoeing, skateboarding, and geocaching. Such Drafter’s note: see also § 201(c)(2), pertaining to activities permitted in
the National Wilderness Preservation System. D R A F T Human-Powered Wildlands Travel Management Act of 2015 v13 2015-09-09 3
activities may employ ancillary mechanical, electronic, or electrical equipment, such as hunting with a game cart or carrier, riding a bicycle, or
using a pedal-driven kayak or boat, wheel-supported backpack, springequipped walking stick, or global positioning system receiver. They do not
include power-assisted propulsive activities, such as riding a bicycle with a small electric motor.


E.g. "wheel supported backpack"

The text of the proposed bill is so egregious with its manipulative wording and misstatement of facts. What a load of baloney.

http://fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/new-me ... -09-09.pdf
User avatar
Shawn
Topix Expert
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:56 pm
Location: Paso Robles, Ca
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: Anybody see this?

Postby rlown » Tue Dec 22, 2015 5:01 pm

ok then. where do we go to sign a petition against it, and it doesn't look the work of a real legislative group; just lobbyists. They would have to rewrite the '64 act. good luck with that.
User avatar
rlown
Topix Junkie
 
Posts: 5349
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Petaluma and Wilton, CA
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: Anybody see this?

Postby balzaccom » Tue Dec 22, 2015 10:13 pm

This does remind me of a hike I took years ago up to the top of Mt. Elwell in the Gold lakes area. The trail up the south side was a steep climb, with lots of talus, and we were pretty amazed to come across a group of mountain bikers dragging their bikes up to the top. they explained that they were going to ride down the North side, which was a better trail.

Only when they got to the top, they discovered the whole North side of the mountain was covered in snow and the trail was unrideable....so they dragged their bikes back down the way they came, over the blocks of talus...
Balzaccom

check out our website: http://www.backpackthesierra.com/
User avatar
balzaccom
Topix Fanatic
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:22 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Anybody see this?

Postby cefire » Wed Dec 23, 2015 9:24 am

cmon4day wrote:cefire,

Motorcycles, convertible cars, are not human powered activities. There in lies your "line".


Seems a pretty clear distinction, would also account for BC ski's as well. Would presumably include wheelchairs, backcountry skateboards, kayaks, and portage wheels. Thanks for clarifying.
User avatar
cefire
Topix Regular
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 2:16 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: Anybody see this?

Postby cefire » Wed Dec 23, 2015 9:32 am

http://fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/new-me ... -09-09.pdf

Oh man, the wording of that bill is a joke. Haha, good luck :lol:
User avatar
cefire
Topix Regular
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 2:16 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: Anybody see this?

Postby DAVELA » Fri Dec 25, 2015 11:39 pm

Mt bikers approach their sport with total aggression.The sense of entitlement to bombing past you on the trail is a big f.u.I dont know if they get anything from being in nature other than getting an adrenaline fix.They d probably get the same thrill dodging rush hour traffic.Ive seen where they have discovered the thrill of damaging ,ruining fragile landscapes in s utah.
Im a bike lover and it is my main transport other than work.
User avatar
DAVELA
Topix Regular
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:23 am
Location: los angeles
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Anybody see this?

Postby Wandering Daisy » Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:11 am

The phenomenon of using the wilderness for athletic/adventure sports has increased in recent years. Historically, climbing was the major "adventure sport" in the wilderness. This is quite logical and really a necessity, since that is where the tops of mountains are located! Mountain climbing pre-dates the wilderness act and is grandfathered in as an allowable activity, as does horse use. With the wilderness act, certain modes of transportation were restricted- such as helicopters. (In the Canadian Rockies helicopter drop-off and pick-up is a common way to get to the base of climbs). Climbing is regulated in that most climbs take more than one day so you must get into the permit pool, like everyone else. Kayaking and rafting are two other adventure sports that are getting more popular. I am a bit more sympathetic to the fellow who is willing to haul his kayak on his back into the wilderness in order to run the rivers. He also mostly is multi-day and is regulated by permits.

Mountain biking as an adventure sport does not necessarily require entry into the wilderness and is primarily a day-us activity. There are many non-wilderness public lands available. However, the current trend to throw everything into "wilderness" designation, mostly to restrict commercial development, has backfired, in that mountain biking has been collaterally damaged with the ever increasing wilderness designations. I do sympathize with this, but the specific change in law proposed is way off base.

In my observations, seen from my perspective, many (not all) who want to mountain bike (as well as trail-run) on wilderness trails do so for the sake of "bragging rights" or just something new, and entitlement that they should be allowed anywhere, not truly being aware of the environment. I would even go as far as classify thru-hiking nearly the same. Many thru-hikers feel they are entitled to be exempt from the quotas and rules and regulations of the wilderness.

I see conflict arising with ever increasing popularity of "extreme adventure sports" and the decreasing popularity of sedate backpacking, fishing and hiking. The new generation is fueled by adrenaline, wanting their moment of "fame", fueled by social media, competition and entitlement. Good that they are doing something real outdoors. So, adventure sports need a place to pursue these activities, but not to the degree that we loose our wilderness. We have a unique resource here in the USA- wilderness lands. Travel to other countries and you will realize how unique and precious this is. We need to protect this resource. The purpose of wilderness is NOT "use". It allows use in proportion to maintaining the preservation goals. That is why there are trail quotas. And restrictions. This entire issue gets to the nuts and bolts of what is "wilderness". Does the instant gratification or demand of allowing non-wilderness use in the wilderness justify dismantling the Wilderness Act. I land on the side of a "no" vote. Yet I think it is a valuable discussion to have. We do not gain anything by simply blowing this off as "stupid" or "outrageous". We need to argue our case.
User avatar
Wandering Daisy
Topix Junkie
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:19 pm
Location: Fair Oaks CA (Sacramento area)
Experience: N/A

PreviousNext

Return to The Campfire



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests